Started By
Message
re: What our offense is missing...
Posted on 11/13/17 at 10:05 am to Funky Tide 8
Posted on 11/13/17 at 10:05 am to Funky Tide 8
quote:
and we absolutely use other WRs in a meaningful way.
I'm going to let you off the hook with the all the contradicting statements you've made over the past two pages and assume this must have been what you meant to say all along.
OK, if you say so. I'll admit that some of the WR's have made the most of the few touches they've gotten (see Ruggs).
1
Posted on 11/13/17 at 10:07 am to Teague
quote:
I'm going to let you off the hook with the all the contradicting statements you've made over the past two pages and assume this must have been what you meant to say all along.
Contradicting how? Your comment was meant in a figurative, or hyperbolic way, and I still disagree with it even on that level. I have said what "I meant to say" since page 1 of this thread. I'm kind of baffled that this is so hard to understand for you.
This post was edited on 11/13/17 at 10:09 am
Posted on 11/13/17 at 10:18 am to Mobtro
You crazy. Our skill positions are air tight. We need better/healthier linemen.
Posted on 11/13/17 at 10:24 am to Funky Tide 8
quote:
Contradicting how? Your comment was meant in a figurative, or hyperbolic way, and I still disagree with it even on that level. I have said what "I meant to say" since page 1 of this thread.
Then you need some help with your debate skills. You're not following logically.
Original thread topic: We need a WR who does other things.
Me: We have lots of great WR's. We're just not using them.
You: Hurts passed to 5 guys on Saturday.
Me: I wasn't talking about one game.
You: It doesn't matter. Your point is bad.
Me: My point was we're only using one WR. How is that point wrong?
You: Now I'll admit we're only using one WR, but he's the best one, so it's a good thing.
Me: So, are we only using one or not?
You: I sense a trap. You should have said we use Ridley more, not exclusively.
Me: You thought I literally meant we only threw the ball to one WR ever?
You: It doesn't matter what you said or meant, you're wrong.
Me: Can you explain that?
You: We don't just use one. We do use Ridley a lot more, but that's good.
Me: So, you thought I literally meant we only throw the ball to one WR ever?
You: I know what you mean, but you're wrong.
Then, more rehashing of the same.
This post was edited on 11/13/17 at 10:27 am
Posted on 11/13/17 at 10:29 am to Teague
quote:
Me: I wasn't talking about one game.
You: It doesn't matter. You point is bad.
you missed my point on this. It "didn't matter" because he has passed to multiple WRs in the last few games, as well.
quote:
Me: My point was we're only using one WR. How is that point wrong? You: Now I'll admit we're only using one WR, but he's the best one, so it's a good thing.
I never admitted this. I stated that, sure, we use 1 more than the others, which is perfectly normal.
quote:
Me: So, are we only using one or not? You: I sense a trap. You should have said we use Ridley more, not exclusively.
you are completely skewing what I've been saying. I NEVER ONCE said that we use only one WR. I said that we use one more than the others, which is completely different than what you are claiming that I said. Which is what you are trying to use for the basis of what you are trying to say here. I get that you didn't literally mean that we only have passed to one WR, but you said it figuratively in a derogatory way, and I disagree that it is a bad thing.
This post was edited on 11/13/17 at 10:57 am
Posted on 11/13/17 at 10:30 am to Teague
But you said this
Not this
Can you see how that is different? Can you also see how someone could take what you said and assume you meant we only throw to Ridley.
quote:
We have fantastic receivers. We're only using one of them.
Not this
quote:
Me: We have lots of great WR's. We're just not using them.
Can you see how that is different? Can you also see how someone could take what you said and assume you meant we only throw to Ridley.
Posted on 11/13/17 at 10:45 am to Bamadiver
quote:
It's ridiculous. That is all it is. Or a troll.
It's not that ridiculous. Calvin Ridley has great hands and is an excellent route runner but he's not a dawg. He isn't physical and lacks on field leadership. What type of message are you sending to the younger guys when you constantly throw your hands up in frustration when you don't get the perfect pass or get the ball at all? And what type of leader doesn't have trust in his QB? It's very primadonnaish. I love the kid, but I'm just calling it like I see it.
Posted on 11/13/17 at 10:51 am to Mobtro
quote:
On that 3rd and 15 pass play that went for 31 yards he stepped out of bounds to avoid contact.
There were like 40 seconds left in the game. He stepped out to stop the clock.
Posted on 11/13/17 at 10:54 am to Funky Tide 8
quote:
I never admitted this. I stated that, sure, we use 1 FAR more than the others
Which was my point. So, you agreed with my point. Then, argued about how that's good, which is irrelevant to the conversation.
I was bored when I started this, but it's becoming tedious now.
And, no Boz, those statements are the same, and "we only use Ridley" is exactly what I meant.
Posted on 11/13/17 at 11:01 am to Teague
quote:
I was bored when I started this,
I mean, I think that we obviously got each others points from the get-go, I am not sure why you insisted on dragging shite out.
Posted on 11/13/17 at 11:08 am to Teague
I kinda agree with what you're saying. Of course any person with eyes sees that we do indeed throw to more receivers than just Calvin Ridley. But, the point, I think, is that we don't really "USE" them in terms of game planning.
Ideally, IMO, the passing game should feature Ridley and feed him until teams take it away by putting two guys on him. When teams take Ridley away, we have other WRs who should be able to really hurt the defense. We should have more "counter punches" in the game plan to take advantage of the other young WRs.
Right now, Jalen's counter punch if the defense takes away Ridley is to run. If the coaches can make pulling the ball down and running his third read instead of his second, then the offense will really take off. And they probably are coaching him that way right now, but he's still rushing through the second read or not trusting it and just taking off.
Ideally, IMO, the passing game should feature Ridley and feed him until teams take it away by putting two guys on him. When teams take Ridley away, we have other WRs who should be able to really hurt the defense. We should have more "counter punches" in the game plan to take advantage of the other young WRs.
Right now, Jalen's counter punch if the defense takes away Ridley is to run. If the coaches can make pulling the ball down and running his third read instead of his second, then the offense will really take off. And they probably are coaching him that way right now, but he's still rushing through the second read or not trusting it and just taking off.
Posted on 11/13/17 at 11:13 am to SECSolomonGrundy
quote:
I kinda agree with what you're saying. Of course any person with eyes sees that we do indeed throw to more receivers than just Calvin Ridley. But, the point, I think, is that we don't really "USE" them in terms of game planning. Ideally, IMO, the passing game should feature Ridley and feed him until teams take it away by putting two guys on him. When teams take Ridley away, we have other WRs who should be able to really hurt the defense. We should have more "counter punches" in the game plan to take advantage of the other young WRs. Right now, Jalen's counter punch if the defense takes away Ridley is to run. If the coaches can make pulling the ball down and running his third read instead of his second, then the offense will really take off. And they probably are coaching him that way right now, but he's still rushing through the second read or not trusting it and just taking off.
I don't NECESSARILY think we should be targeting other WR's more. I think there are a couple of reasons why we don't (let's not open that can of worms). But, my point was really just that the OP doesn't really know if we have any "dawg" WR's, because we've barely seen anyone other than Ridley.
Posted on 11/13/17 at 11:36 am to Teague
Disagree strongly. We have great WR depth and Calvin is a beast. Oline and QB play are our weakest points on offense and even they they are good enough to win a title. Run defense is going to make or break us this year
Posted on 11/13/17 at 11:40 am to Mobtro
quote:
On that 3rd and 15 pass play that went for 31 yards he stepped out of bounds to avoid contact
Staying in bounds to take on a would be tackler would have kept the clock moving. It would have stopped to reset the chains but then started again, possibly forcing a spike to kill the clock, leading to 2nd down. 2nd down could have resulted in a more conservative play call and ultimately led to a FG attempt.
Posted on 11/13/17 at 11:51 am to KareemAbdul
quote:
Disagree strongly.
With what?
Because I agree with most of what you said. I might disagree somewhat about the O line, but overall I think we're on the same page, although I didn't bring any of that up in this thread.
Posted on 11/13/17 at 11:58 am to CrimsonBoz
I hate our fans sometimes. We have three pages of arguing over WR and their touches.
Posted on 11/13/17 at 12:08 pm to Mobtro
Ridley is definitely not soft. Every time he catches the ball he's giving it his all to get more. The play he ran out of bounds was to preserve clock during a sub 2 minute drill. He did the smart thing
Posted on 11/13/17 at 1:44 pm to eric4UA08
Yeah that's just being smart. Not sure why in the world he thought Ridley was being soft
Posted on 11/13/17 at 2:47 pm to Teague
quote:
With what?
Because I agree with most of what you said. I might disagree somewhat about the O line, but overall I think we're on the same page, although I didn't bring any of that up in this thread.
With the OP saying we need something more out of the WR group. Calvin is a master of YAC and trying to make big plays out of otherwise routine passes. Everyone has spoken to why running out of bounds was the best play so I won't touch that.
I think the Oline play is the weakest unit, and it is all hard to judge. I think every fan of every team thinks their oline is bad, but I think ours is better than average. Not as good as the WR or RB group, but a few of them are studs most of the time.
Posted on 11/13/17 at 2:51 pm to BIGJLAW
quote:
I hate our fans sometimes. We have three pages of arguing over WR and their touches.
I don't think that was the argument as much as OP didn't really consider the time left in the game when he made this thread.
Calvin is by far our dominant WR, but I don't think that is a terrible thing. You would love to get more guys the ball, but we rotate so many people and rarely go to second reads that Calvin gets a majority of the catches. It is result of the offensive scheme more than the talent of the WR group. Overall I think they are a strong bunch and we have a great future at the position.
Page 3 of 4
Latest Alabama News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News